Krasuer had a cool talk about daygame with the Street Attraction guys recently. And in this talk he goes off briefly about how game produces better knowledge of “the human courtship ritual” than any other source. Very interesting topic.

Here is how he kicks off that point:

“To me, the daygame that we do is the best social science in the world right now.”
— Krauser, from the Street Attraction interview

That is a bold claim. And I agree.

I won’t over-emphasize the “daygame” part of Nick’s comment. Men of game in general can likely own the claim Krauser is making. The general public won’t understand the level of experience Krauser has when he makes a point like that, but he is correct.

“If you think of it as ‘game as social science,’ we are the modern social scientists.”
— Krauser

As we work to “find/meet/attract/close” women, we run more experiments, more “real life” experiments, with “intimate consequences,” than anyone else. And that makes our “first hand” experience more valid, more “in-tune” with verifiable truth than someone in an academic setting.

It’s a bit self-congratulatory, but the point is correct. And recognizing this POV, might help us see our “experiments” in a different light.

Of course running around on the street doesn’t mean you’ll get laid or that you’ll command any insight. However, even if you are a novice, you’ll quickly gain a much better-than-average read of social cues by approaching women. And when you start consistently getting laid from this kind of “studying,” now you have demonstrated proof of something… and you have more credibility than most academics on these topics.

Is daygame easy? Is it easy to get girls to stop, to give you their contacts, and then respond, and then date you, and then spread their thighs in wonton relish?

I would argue daygame is not easy. I would argue it is quite difficult. Even though it is not easy (or obvious), we know men can learn this in predictable ways. I did. And daygame is a subset of our larger School of Game… where the lessons go on and on in every direction. Nobody knows more about mating and dating patterns in humans than we do.

Game is not easy… but it is something we can practice. And each practice session is another test of ourselves and of our theories. And a chance to notice and collect some data to help us begin to know the social world.

“To understand the social world, you’ve got to get reliable and valid data. Most social science is just giving questionnaires to a bunch of graduates students in a university. You’re not going to get valid or reliable data that way.”

“What we do as daygamers, we go out and we do thousands of sets. Every set, we’ve got skin in the game, we want to get laid. The girl has skin in the game… a risk of letting herself get fucked. Both sides have skin in the game. You’re getting very valid information about the human courtship ritual.”
— Krauser

“Skin in the game.” That’s the key, right there. That is what makes us unique social scientists. We’re not keyboard jockeys theoretical. It’s real-time theory-testing with both immediate and long-term feedback.

Here is a perfect example of what Krauser is talking about in terms of how the mainstream world tries (and fails) to understand sexuality:

See that. They are trying to “study” attractiveness. And they aren’t out in the field.

That study used video footage of non-sexual interactions (not infields) and written descriptions of those scenes. They presented that fluff to “46 women and 42 men enrolled in an introductory psychology course.” That means the “judges of reality” here are college kids (many of them in their freshman year). From that “hard hitting science” they came up with “findings” that Scott thinks actually mean something.

That study is not unusual in its methods. When you see examples like this, about how academics “study sex”… Krauser’s claim seems more and more like a simple fact.

Men of game have real data. Data on our own behavior, as measured against women’s actual responses (and feedback from our wings). And we have data from the behavior of those women, captured live and on the spot, as we “twist and turn” their nipples dials to see what happens.

If you’re getting started, and haven’t claimed much flesh from daygame yet, you need more “data,” as Krauser says. Even so, it’s easy to see how you’re already miles ahead of the dry, disconnected “paper experiments” that drive conclusions in most of the scientific literature. You are both literally and figuratively closer. You are face to face with real, live girls.

It’s a beautiful thing.

“In a follow up study, the researchers isolated various adjectives to pinpoint which descriptors were actually considered sexually attractive.”

“Actually.”

This ^ time Scott is pointing to a difference study, one that claims to answer the question: “Do Women Prefer Dominant Men?” They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and just asked Yohami.

In this piece of “academic excellence,” “One hundred and eighteen undergraduate females participated” in a study (for course credit) and “were asked to provide an evaluation of the man in the description.”

We know one of the basic tenets of game is “watch what she does, not what she says.” This kind of study is only about “what she says” and produces what Krauser would call “unreliable data.”

From all this, Scott wants us to be sure to note:

“In short, a simple dominant-nondominant dimension may be of limited value when predicting mate preferences for women.”
— Scott

What we know about dominance is of tremendous value. Full stop.

It’s not the only thing to know about game, that is true, but Scott’s line is a flat-footed conclusion. Of course it’s more than alpha/beta. But this kind of study can’t compare with how Men of Game tease out a successful read of a woman or a sexual exchange.

The title of Scott’s post is “The Myth of the Alpha Male.” Let’s not get into our version of that debate now. The point is, no matter what we Men of Game think of that argument… we come to our conclusions from a level of research that completely out-works and out-classes Scott and his “sources.” And we do so, because of the reasons Krauser is highlighting in his recent talk…

We talk to girls. Lots of them. We more than talk… we put ourselves and these girls in situations where the truth bubbles to the surface. We turn up the heat… and the bullshit boils away.

Here is more from Scott:

“In terms of the nondominant adjectives, the big winners were easygoing… and sensitive.”

See guys? You “need to be more sensitive.” This is what “comfort” “attraction” is really all about.

These studies are examples of beta researchers pushing false-insight based on bad data. Many in the mainstream crowd would love to hear that dominance and aggression and alpha traits aren’t worth the work they take to acquire. That “game doesn’t work.” How many times have we heard that from guys with no experience? These researchers are pandering. And they are 100 miles away from the realities of the sexual jungle.

Some of the power of the kind of true social science that Krauser is talking about is this: You don’t have to take my word for it. And certainly don’t take Scott’s. Hit the street, and run your own experiments. Krauser and the London lads have laid out a recommended path, but you are free to try anything you want. You’d be a fool to start from scratch… but you can.

Go talk to girls. That is where the rubber hits the road.

“The researchers then asked women to indicate which of the adjectives used to describe John were ideal for a date as well as for a long-term romantic partner.”
— Scott

This ^ is an example of “self-reported” data. We know self-reported data is not quality data. Sometimes that is true because the subjects aren’t honest (they say what they think the interviewer wants to hear). In this case that kind of data sucks because the subjects responses aren’t nearly as accurate as they would be if you put them in a sexual situation, instead of asking them about a situation. It’s not “reliable and valid” as Krauser would say.

We don’t ASK girls if they like us… we test for compliance to find out. Compliance tests… maybe we should call them “compliance experiments.”

There is a huge difference between what a girl might “say” she’ll do, and what she actually does, when things heat up. The heat of real life makes their actions more “honest.” Honest signals. If she is fucking you… she is fucking you. You may not be completely right about why… but you are so much closer than “ivory tower” knowledge can ever be. You’re skin to skin with the truth.

In a related way… I don’t do much in the way of “post sex” interviews anymore (that is “self reported” data, and it’s unreliable). In the last year, those kinds of “interviews” seem like a waste of time to me. Again, what she says is miles away from the truth of what she does. Even at the level of the sheets on our bed, we test girls and our theories… by moving them through the model, not by asking them questions. Her “self-reported” data is not nearly as valid as our own observations of the conditions under which she is willing to spread her legs.

Here is more from the Street Attraction talk:

“We are directly experiencing it. Nobody is telling us about it… we’re seeing it though our own eyes.”

“What we do is an amazing data collection exercise. The sample size is thousands upon thousands of very valid interactions. Then we’re seeing downstream… which ones come on dates? Which girls will put out?”
— Krauser

I’ll echo one of my personal points of emphasis here, and say this ^ is about volume.

You have to talk to a lot of girls if you want any sense of mastery here… in the same way that proper scientific studies have large sample sizes. The fact that we run thousands of sets (I think I am getting close to 4000 street approaches) means we have a LOT of data. Compare that to surveying “100 freshman college girls.” I can talk to 100 girls in a week. And that would make me an “expert” on exactly nothing.

We know volume of experiments here is essential. Not only are you more likely to find an “interested and available” girl in a “bigger study,” but you are also more likely to learn. And the truth is, the % of girls you approach that turn in sticky delicious sex will always be low… less than 10%, that is certain. Closer to 1% for me. So most approaches are in fact, about learning. About calibration. About data collection… about ourselves and the girls. About becoming an expert.

“What we have to say… is superior to every social science department in the world, because of the high quality valid and reliable data… and how we’re organizing it… in this huge crowdsourcing operation, that we call the seduction community, which generates new hypothesis and then tests them.”
— Krauser

Actually fucking girls both tests and validates our theories. It is proof we are onto something real. And that our knowledge is applicable.

And when Krauser talks about our community (Game, and the larger Manosphere), now we are trading secrets and collaborating. And while there is no substitute for your own time on the sidewalk, the shared knowledge is a UUUGGE resource for all of us. I constantly reference “the studies of other men.” And I add my own “case studies” here as my own contribution to the field.

We keep the invalid reporting in our community down to a minimum as we rip each other’s FRs to shreds in the comments of forums and blogs. And all of the online bickering we do about game… is our form of “peer review.”

I wrote this in the comment section for that video on youtube:

“When I first started studying [game], I used to think the FBI (or something) must have some materials that would help us ‘unlock’ human interactions that I could use to get better with girls… some “secrets” I could use.

“Guys like Paul Ekman have some very special things to teach, but… a few years later… I know WE ARE THE BEST SOURCE of this information. There are secrets, and we know them… we can feel them in our bones, in set.

“Nobody spends as much time, in human interactions, nearly every day, with ‘skin the game,’ at the critical level, … as we do as men of game.”
— Nash

It’s true.

I don’t think (anymore) that there is a substantial body of men in the military or government or anywhere else, that knows more about this than we do. That would mean they spend as much time on this as we do… and nobody is accusing us of not spending enough time on girls. We are developing, and sharing, a rare skill set here.

“What we are keying into is the human courtship ritual that is in our DNA, but which for evolutionary reasons is somewhat disguised from us. We are trying to lift the veil on that.”

“We are the people that can teach the social scientists about dating. We’re on the frontlines.”
— Krauser

I wrote a piece on a similar topic over a year ago. I remembered the post, but I didn’t remember that that too was inspired by Krauser. I transcribed this next quote from his theory-based lecture series, The Womanizers Bible:

Because we’re literally having thousands of interactions with women. We’re going thru the stages of the courtship ritual — certainly the beginnings of it, before we get blown out — thousands of times. Thousands of thousands of times. Way more than a normal man ever would. Way more than the girl ever will.

That will generally engender experience. And that experience leads to extreme social savvy and calibration, which is, in itself, very, very attractive.”
— Krauser

Krauser has a perfect and inspiring read on all this.

All this experimentation and “extreme social savvy” goes beyond the streets… and continues through each stage of the model… including the bedroom.

I have been all over the concept of LMR lately. I wrote about it in my Janka/LMR piece. And then more so in my most recent daygame lay report from this trip in Japan. I’m very interested in how “resistance” works in women, and how to avoid it altogether and focus on arousal instead.

On this trip so far, I’ve had four girls in my apartment and three in my bed. I fucked the one. The other two were great makeouts where I played with each girls willingness to have sex. I played with her turn-on, and did my best to encourage it (and in other ways build connection with those girls). I was curious and tested what might make her aroused enough that she would lean forward into my advances. Both were awesome and delicious experiences. Both were precious experiments where I collected rare data in a first-hand way.

Those girls knew they were very close to getting fucked. Women love sex, but there are many good reasons why a girl won’t pounce on any cock that can pry her pants off. Biological and social consequences are strong incentives for a girl to give you very real feedback when you physically make a move on her womb. More “honest signals.” So any experiments I run in my lab bed should generate reference experiences (data) that I know I can trust… even if I can’t perfectly interpret what that data means in every instance (that too, will come with more experiments/experience).

The data I gather is about girls. And about “mating rituals.” But it is also about myself. I’m fascinated. I love it.

What a hot game.

More girls. More data. More salacious wenching. And more feedback to make me even better in future iterations of the “sexual research” we call daygame.

63 Responses to Daygamers Are the Best “Social Scientists”

As a side thing and I am not trying to be contrary but you wonder are all the girls that get picked up on the street a type of girl?
One can only look through the successful ones and draw conclusions. On the other hand can you ever know about the type of girls that day gamers are not successful with. I read an interesting book called Black Box Thinking. In it it talks about planes returning from bombing missions in the war. The strategy was to strengthen the areas which had damage to them/ bullets holes. Yet the areas in which the planes were not hit with fire were likely the spots that needed strengthening or were the areas that if hit would have brought down the planes that didn’t return. Or the planes that didn’t make it back what happen to them.
The reason I say this there must be a type that you can target or things you can notice over time aside from the obvious is this girl attractive to me. If it is your thing and you can get better and better at bedding these girls surely there must be things on the other side you can refine. Short cuts.

>> are all the girls that get picked up on the street a type of girl?
One can only look through the successful ones and draw conclusions. On the other hand can you ever know about the type of girls that day gamers are not successful with

True. And I like your analogy about the planes that make it back home… vs fixes that might bring MORE planes back home.

Good point.

As for “unknown unknowns.” I can experiment and looks for surprises. And I can trust that brothers have done the same… and they bring up common trends and their own challenges… and suggested improvements.

As I said in our comment about “peer review,” we are gnarly with each other. Yohami kicked the shit out of me… and helped me see some serious blind spots. I love that about the way proper men talk to each other… we don’t pull punches, and it keeps us sharp.

Beyond that… the “chaos” is endless. I should follow what order I can find.

10% improvement on a know ROI producing technique… is 10% improvement. Take that to the bank.

Yohami takes me up a level… when he steers me away from “overcoming resistance” toward “generating arousal.” A 10% improvement in the one is not the same as 10% improvement in the other… one is more powerful than the other.

I am looking for those kinds of gains.

>> >> are all the girls that get picked up on the street a type of girl?

Yeah… they are “available and interested.” Have we sorted through those girls? When we have done that… and still can’t find what we’re looking for, let’s look for other approaches.

[That “game doesn’t work.” How many times have we heard that from guys with no experience?]

Nash. I wonder something. How is the response of girls to you now compared to before? I read that you had some good success with women as a more “sensitive beta” guy. So women did desire you and have sex with you. I think I am a bit in a similar situation in that I had some good sexual experiences as a non-dominant male, although I need to wait long to be chosen instead of chooser. How do women look at you now that you know game? How is the sex different? How do they treat you and view you? Also, there is a lot of talk about being attractive is something you are not something you do. And that you should not be in your head when you game. So to what do you attribute your success? To what you do or to what you have become after 4000 approaches? And when you are gaming girls, do you think strategically like “I should do this then that”? Or do you let instincts take over? I am new to game but I fear that if I do things girls will feel it because RSD says you have to flow and be in the moment. So how can I be in the moment if I am thinking about what to do next? And won’t that be having a hidden agenda? Thanks

Hey buddy. Good to have you here. I need to dig back to other comments you’ve made in the last few days… I’m super busy on this trip… but I like what you’re bringing.

(You’re not Chulo, are you? Ha.)

>> you had some good success with women as a more “sensitive beta” guy

I did. I had some solid value, pre game. I’m smart. I am “sensitive” (*PUKE!*). I am artistic, productive, an achiever. Some girls like that stuff… it’s a passive way to score chicks… but it’s not completely irrelevant.

>> although I need to wait long to be chosen instead of chooser

Aha! You’re on to something here, brother.

And I can point to “life stages.” I am mid 40s. And I am fucking girls 15-20 years younger than me. That… is all game. Or… the result of who I have become since I made “becoming a better man” a priority.

>> So to what do you attribute your success?

If you’ve read my writing this year… you’ll see what is on my mind. Read my piece about the breakup with Miss Thick. That is who I want to be… the man that wrote that piece. I’m not always that man. I want to be that man, and more.

YES… I still do “outer game.” I am specifically using some tweaks from Krauser’s new book. I pay attn to my text messages, etc.

But increasingly… I want to be a PATRIARCH. That is way up above game. I am trying to lead men and women… and myself. At the larger level, like… starting projects, or in business. At the date level… where I manage the logistics, but more so… I manage her mood. I manage everything. I am in charge. Period. Ha…. it’s true.

Especially as I get older… the investment in the latter is the best thing for me. In terms of pussy… and in terms of my actual solidity as a man.

>>How is the sex different?

This is an excellent question. I had good sex, when I was younger. I was lucky, I think. It only happened with girls that really choose me (I did the asking out, but still)… so I think that encouragement brought out the best side of me… and I could lead, somewhat, in bed.

Now… I can do it predictably… with women that are much less certain… with women that are scared… I can manage their moods… Yohami has me hot on the trail of being much more intune with “arousal” — this is UUUUGE for me personally right now.

This ^ is about “studying” and “practice.”

I’m becoming a proper dominant. In the sexual sense. I think I am going to make a commitment to rope bondage… and I think I’m ready for that… as I am solid enough to lead women there too. I think I will be a very fucking sexy dom… and I’ll grow into that, over the next 5-15 years.

I have a ton of doubts and low moments… but I am on a good path. This community has that potential. I am super grateful.

Could you please explain what being a patriarch means to you, Nash? And how that would help your daygame? The image of that words in my mind makes me think a patriach is an older man with money and power. So a patriach is more of a social circle game concept. How do you define a Patriach? And how do you imagine it will improve your daygame results, especially in Japan? Thanks.

Every time I think you blow it out of the park with a great post, you write the next one… and surpass it. I love this post!

Collecting data and understanding women is the main reason I’m in the game. I want to get to the point where I am advanced-level in every type of game – daygame, nightgame, online game, social circle game — and with every type of girl: college students, MILFs, party girls, bookworms, girls from every country and culture in the world.

I want to get to the point where I understand women so well that my game is on autopilot. The next ten years are going to be incredible!!!

Baseline rejection rate is 98% for the real world and you are trying to tell the system to go fvck itself. Be ready. 98% rejection rate.

Search youtube for beginner daygame by Tom Torero (Nash’s favorite)

Push the envelope of dominance in body language, voice tonality and eye contact. As 60 YoC says, risk creepy. It’s the only way to seduce. Say what you see and tease her about one thing then have a normal conversation where you alternate curiosity/questions with statements about topics she brings up. Find somewhere in there to drop and opinion you believe in.

Do 300 – 500 sets. You’ll find 6 – 10 Yes girls. Hopefully you bang 3 – 5 of them.
Talk as little as you can get away with on a date and physically escalate. They are yes girls, they want you to escalate on them. You can talk about excel spreadsheets while escalating and get somewhere. Hell that is Franco’s move.
Google Vin DiCarlo Escalation ladder.

Then get Krausers Nitro book and Black Book video for the next 1000 or so sets and settle in for the grind.

There are no shortcuts…but you’ll try to find them because 98% rejection rates are painful. Love the pain – it’s what keeps the rest of them out and what makes it scarce and therefore valuable.

Eventually they bang you because you’re one of the most socially adept men that ever comes across her path. She can’t help herself…its the equivalent of perfect C cups, nice ass and long legs…it can be irresistible. I’m not even close, but understanding the end point and why is valuable.

For most men, the rejection rate is between 99% (1 lay in a 100 approaches) and 99.9% (1 lay in a 1000 approaches).

So we’re out there grinding it out till the bitter end on the streets to find the few 6s and 7s and the rare 8 that are willing to suck the cock in a sea of constant rejections.

That’s why RSD Tyler’s warmup is 20 approaches. He knows 20 approaches is nothing. If we’re lucky and at the top of our game and dedicated we may get 1 new girl a month, which is at a good 50 approaches a week is 1 lay out of 200 approaches for a real advanced pro daygamer.

Still, where else could we get girls that are NOT part of our tribe? There is no hierarchy (unless a rare exception like the Playboy Mansion) where a 40+ years old man like Nash can be the Top Guy within a tribe filled with 18-20 years old girls he can fuck.

In the street, he can squat the area in front of a college and hit on teenage girls all day. In any other relevant hierarchy, he’ll be dealing with divorced moms and that type of woman.

No, a good rejection rate is -100%. Which means that for every girl you’re engaging with, there’s another one waiting for her turn

A decent rejection rate is 0

Over 10% means you don’t know what you are doing

Over 50% means you’re just random

Over 60% you’re running anti game, need to stop and recollect.

“For most men”

Most men classify as “don’t know what they are doing”, “random”, “creepy”, “needy”, “anti game”.

You’re not learning game to be “most men” are you.

“So we’re out there grinding it out”

You’re not learning Game to “grind”

If you’re grinding you’re not doing Game.

“That’s why RSD Tyler’s warmup is 20 approaches.”

BS alert.

I don’t have the context of that phrase – but this doesn’t mean he got rejected 20 times before he’s able to function, or that he needs 20 approaches to feel at ease.

“50 approaches a week is 1 lay out of 200 approaches for a real advanced pro daygamer.”

No man, this pure madness.

What you’re saying here is that an advanced pro daygamer is very unattractive, most women find him so, plus has zero social skills, doesn’t know how to flirt, doesn’t know how to lead, doesn’t know how to arouse women, doesn’t know how to identify the women to are ready and available, doesn’t know how to close.

Very pro.

“Still, where else could we get girls that are NOT part of our tribe?”

“Top Guy”

Top Guy, as I keep talking about, is first and foremost a frame of reference.

There is plenty of hierarchy on the street. Hierarchy is all you’re trying to communicate to the girl when you open her. The fact that you think there’s no hierarchy, it alone explains the high rejection rate.

“So we’re out there grinding it out till the bitter end on the streets to find the few 6s and 7s and the rare 8 that are willing to suck the cock in a sea of constant rejections.”

Look at it.

The metaphor is that you’re the wolf circling around the herd preying on the weak sheep.

This is hierarchy. Why are not the strong sheep giving you time of the day?

You’re running bottom guy game – going for the left overs, creeping over the ‘rare 8’ who ventures down there, why? because she’s probably broken.

The whole frame is upside down.

When you talk to the girl you must be ‘above’. The whole frame you’re describing, you’re at the bottom of the pyramid.

The “sea of constant rejection” is the wrong habitat.

“abundance” is the proper habitat.

The guy who is in abundance will kill it on the street, and everywhere else. Or – a guy who’s already alpha / top guy can do Daygame and kill it.

If your own reality is a ‘sea of rejections’ and ‘you’re unattractive to 98% of women and think that’s actually good’ and ‘you’ll bang 1 girl in 200’ you’re playing so uphill I scratch my head as to why you think that’s a good game to play at all. It’s like you didn’t stop to look at the actual game and the rules of what you’re doing.

What you’re missing there is all that herd is flocking, desperately, toward ‘attractive men’

These attractive men have a rejection rate of minus a million.

You’re not supposed to go after women who find you unattractive.

You’re supposed to become attractive. And bang the girls who find you so.

Hi Yohami. I remember you said that her evaluation of you on The Street is 10X more strict compared to being at the top of a hierarchy. So we have to be much more “perfect” in our game to get some success. I have a few questions (1) other than the Top Guy frame, how do we become the attractive guy with a rejection rate of minus a million? (2) how else can we fuck 10-12 girls potentially who are much younger and varied than us, and to be able to do it in any country in the world other than day game? (3) does a Top Guy become more attractive with age or age is a factor that objectively reduces his attractiveness? Krauser argues the top attractive hotness of a man is in his mid 20s then it goes downhill from there and everything become harder unless you are looking for relationships, then his peak is in his 30s (becoming more marriage material).

So basically, Yohami: if you were to do the best and most powerful way to get a VARIETY of younger girls (like college girls, sporty girls, artistic girls, rich daddy’s girls) how would you do it without daygaming? We daygame because it is like a buffet: I can go in front of a Yoga studio knowing I have a good chance at finding a Yoga girl, or go near a liberal arts campus knowing i’ll get such girls, or 5th Av like Nash did to get some rich girls. But social circle or hierarchies, you are basically stuck into like-minded girls, and as you get older, you hierarchies will be more focused on older women too. I am pretty sure no 19 years old girls are hanging around the local chamber of commerce meeting.

Him (and Lovedrop the co author) were the first to document all this. Not reading it and trying to understand how the social sciences apply to girls is like a chemist who has never studied the periodic table.

Lots of the things you and Yohami are trying to define are in that book. For example look up IOI buffers and calibrators. By the smooth escalation you discuss you mean the micro calibration balance they define.

I’d drop everything and read the original map for all that you are writing about. Viva The Mystery Method!

>> Lots of the things you and Yohami are trying to define are in that book. For example look up IOI buffers and calibrators. By the smooth escalation you discuss you mean the micro calibration balance they define.

I actually have it with me, here in Japan. It is next on my list, after Krauser’s book. This is a good push to get me to finally read it.

I will assume (perhaps falsely) that Yohami is still head/shoulders about what I’ll read there. I have studied almost everybody (except that book!). And I’ve never gotten it the way Yohami is bringing it.

And I will admit… that it is very likely that I didn’t have enough experience to understand what I’d heard.

I’ll read it. And I’ll quote this comment when I do my post on that book.

2. but, as you know, i have been saying for a long time, mystery and lovedrop were making epic breakthroughs 15-20 years ago, and so many other people have been taking credit for it or just assuming that it was “obvious”.

3. reminds me of how they say citizen kane was an epic breakthrough, but it just doesn’t feel that way because it was so influential that many movies adopted these breakthroughs.

“I remember you said that her evaluation of you on The Street is 10X more strict compared to being at the top of a hierarchy.”

Yes sort of.

————————-

“(1) other than the Top Guy frame, how do we become the attractive guy with a rejection rate of minus a million?”

There’s no other way, that’s where you’re going want it or not. All the game techniques are borrowed from “top guy” frame. All the material proof, social proof, monetary proof etc are attractive only in that they infer you have ‘top guy’ frame. Even if you have a perfect body and money you’ll still lose the girls if you don’t have top guy frame.

So top guy frame first, external validation and congruence second.

But the external stuff determines the tribe you’re in, which is where the girls are. So if you don’t belong to the tribe you’ll still be lagging behind and not have access, even if you’re the toppest guy of them all in your head and behavior.

————————-

” (2) how else can we fuck 10-12 girls potentially who are much younger and varied than us, and to be able to do it in any country in the world other than day game?”

Kind of a ridiculous question – with any other shape or form of Game.

Here the bottom argument is that Daygame is not just “game at day”. What I’ve seen guys doing is standing on a corner, approach a girl, go back to their corner, approach another girl, go back to their corner. Take leads, iterate through them, take notes etc.

That thing above is insanity.

Game “during day” which is not the same as “daygame” goes like this: you flirt with the girls you find attractive during day, and double down when it’s going well. This is no different than doing it at night though. Or in the afternoon. It doesn’t become “afternoongame” because of the time of the day.

“(3) does a Top Guy become more attractive with age or age is a factor that objectively reduces his attractiveness?”

Depends on the age. Youth is potential, which is traded by age and proof. A successful 35 year old man has the same value as a 25 year old with potential, roughly speaking. Then it depends on other things. Roughly you can be up to 7 years older than the girl without issues. Over 10 years there starts being more friction (aka you’ll be shit tested). Unless you have preselection.

But all things considered the man peaks in attractiveness around 35, assuming he’s in shape, is top guy, and successful. There it’s a piece of cake to compete against his 25 year old self.

“Krauser argues the top attractive hotness of a man is in his mid 20s then it goes downhill from there”

You can be more attractive at 40 than you were at 25, and bang girls half your age.

“and everything become harder unless you are looking for relationships, then his peak is in his 30s (becoming more marriage material).”

Not really sure what this means. If you can’t get laid you also can’t get a relationship. Unless this is about beta-bucks?

“if you were to do the best and most powerful way to get a VARIETY of younger girls (like college girls, sporty girls, artistic girls, rich daddy’s girls) how would you do it without daygaming?”

How about you talk to them? when you see one you like.

“I can go in front of a Yoga studio knowing I have a good chance at finding a Yoga girl, or go near a liberal arts campus knowing i’ll get such girls, or 5th Av like Nash did to get some rich girls.”

Yep, like that.

That’s not the issue: the issue is that when you talk to the girls you have to be above them. You must be top guy / alpha, and you must be in abundance, and be dominant, firm, but relaxed, be able to tease, flirt, command, joke, and know how to treat them.

All that needs to be there.

Day or night or afternoon.

How you acquire these traits is what I talk about.

Being bottom guy and trying to scrap the bottom of the barrel doesn’t teach you how to do it properly. Talking to 100 girls and being told by 98 that you don’t cut it, doesn’t teach you what you’re lacking to turn them all into a YES.

In social circle AT LEAST you can see the type of guys these girls go for, and you can learn from their dynamics. In night game AT LEAST you see the guys who are killing it and that gives you something to emulate.

At day, in that corner, with your mental notebook and the ‘hunt’ all you have is your own imagination and nothing tangible to go against.

So if that’s how you want to do it, get an alpha / top guy friend who’s a natural and emulate him until you disappear.

“But social circle or hierarchies, you are basically stuck into like-minded girls, and as you get older, you hierarchies will be more focused on older women too. ”

Nope – join different social groups, different activities, and engage with anyone and everyone. There’s plenty of people out there, at all times of the day, and night.

“I am pretty sure no 19 years old girls are hanging around the local chamber of commerce meeting.”

Yep, the thing is that they are trying to avoid the kind of men who wait in corners and hit on every girl (and get rejected). At the same time they are looking desperately for another kind of man.

>> If we’re lucky and at the top of our game and dedicated we may get 1 new girl a month, which is at a good 50 approaches a week is 1 lay out of 200 approaches for a real advanced pro daygamer.
— Blue

This real. ^^

This is what my stats look like…. this is baseline lower-intermediate stats, as I see it.

Blue, if you are saying this… we are two of the only guys in game that are either this honest… or this bad. I am convinced most men are providing complete BS stats.

Do you know several guys don’t consider it an “approach” unless the girls talks to them for a bit? I know two guys. And that is totally cool with me… completely… by my “99%” includes every single blowout. I count every single approach.

I’m trying to be honest… because BEING HONEST WITH MYSELF IS GOOD FOR MY MASCULINE INTEGRITY AND MY INNER GAME. Yes to that. It really is. And also… because I want guys to see the real work rate to this game. They are going to have stats like you/me, and I want them to know that is normal.

^ This is “intermediate” success. Advanced numbers are completely different (for many of the reasons Yohami is saying). I believe Krauser/RoyWalker. Most other guys… I think wish they were Krauser/Roy.

WITH THAT SAID… I like talking to girls. It is fun, and invigorating. I am slowly becoming a social genius, at the level of face-face calibration alone (even as I need a LOT of work, at the Top Guy stuff).

“Rejection” to us, means not fucking the girl. But in reality, that 99% isn’t “rejecting” us. They are smiling, blushing, getting visibly turned on, giving us their numbers, dating us, hugging us on the street, sucking our cocks… but “+1” only counts if you get two pumps inside her (RSG Standard).

I had a girl in my bed on New Years day. Met her the day before. Kissed her and ate her pussy… I learned from that experience… but since I didn’t fuck her… I count her in the “99%.” This is part of the confusion of what this all means.

I’m not Top Guy, not most of the time… I know… but there is a lot of awesome stuff going on in the “99%” that “reject” (= didn’t fuck me).

…………..

There IS MUCH MORE TO THIS than “spam approaching.” Or what Krauser calls “blind approaching.”

But these stats are healthy and normal, in my view, for beginners and intermediates. Yes, we are often “bottom guy.” But this can be a normal stage for a man that is growing.

And can work in conjunction with what Yohami is saying.

Blue… you are have turned on a mostly confusing stream from Yohami. When I was pushing Yohami in this direction two years ago… my game got worse… as I had Yohami in my head saying what I was doing was hopeless. It hurt my vibe and made me worse… for a while. It did… it fucked up my game.

I can translate it now… but you’ll get more “pain” from Yohami if you come at him with this story. I tired it. You’re not wrong, in my view (about approaching), but Yohami is allergic to this angle… and I understand why.

>> Top Guy, as I keep talking about, is first and foremost a frame of reference.
–Yohami

This is magic. Stop and take this in. This is “the thing.”

Top Guy is a new (new to us) “internal standard.” It is a new (new to us) “way of thinking.” And it is taking me a long time to translate this into new behavior… which will eventually prove Yohami is correct about all this.

It’s on us to make it… or not. Yohami is correct. He is already Top Guy. It’s not his fault we are not.

This is the “alpha” story, but a much more “high resolution” look at that stereotype.

Top Guy isn’t necessarily what you do… it is how you do it… and when you “get it,” “what you choose to do (or stop doing) changes also.”

I will write a post soon about how all this relates to my text game.

>> There’s no other way, that’s where you’re going want it or not.
— Yohami

I am more than sold on this… but this is not easy to do, and our “old habits” are very, very hard to break.

Most men were NOT meant to be Top Guy. So we are cheating biology, most of us, as we work our way into this.

I am cheating what nature wanted me to be… which was a very good man, married now, with 3 kids… having fucked 8 girls, total, my whole life. That is a very good deal, for most men… but I am not trying to be most men.

No dis. I just want something different.

>> Baseline rejection rate is 98% for the real world and you are trying to tell the system to go fvck itself.
— Sundance

I am saying something similar to Sundance here. I think he might be talking about “society.” But I am talking about nature. Either way, “game” is a way for “average men” to change their destinies.

Nash, can you please try to translate Yohami’s Top Guy into a post? I am sure taking the time to think it through will help you a lot, the different angle because of the translation will help us all a lot, and the comments on that post will be GOLD.

I am clearly a student of Yohami game, but I will provide some counter-talk here, for guys that want a little balance. “Yohami is always right.” But what we read from him can get lost in the details… sometimes, because Yohami is a cocky, stubborn dude… and that makes it hard to learn from him sometimes.

Big *bow* to Yohami. Here I will argue with him a bit.

>> Here the bottom argument is that Daygame is not just “game at day”.

Daygame is, in fact, NOT just “game at day.” It is much more than that.

It’s a PROCESS (structure/etc) and it’s DISCIPLINE (going out and finding girls and practicing). Yohami oversimplifies this, and tells you how a KING RUNS GAME (assuming all the flow of opportunity from a king’s lifestyle). And we may get there, but we are not all kings… not yet.

>> you flirt with the girls you find attractive during day, and double down when it’s going well.

Yes… this is daygame… but we are structured about it. And most of us are “new” so we don’t do it like Top Guy.

Top Guy… is >10% of men in Game, and less than 2% of men in total.

“REJECTIONS:”
>> Over 10% means you don’t know what you are doing
>> Over 50% means you’re just random
>> Over 60% you’re running anti game, need to stop and recollect.

This is a terrible way to teach, Yohami. It confuses guys. I’ll say more in a comment below… I want to take this in a direction that is more productive in another comment below.

We are talking about “as average guys, the girls we like (but rarely know in person), reject us (meaning don’t fuck us, which is very specific) at a rate of 99-99.5%.” You are saying, for “Top Guy, working ONLY WITH GIRLS THAT LIKE HIM, what is his rejection rate… >10%.”

That is apples and oranges. Yohami is right… for Top Guy… outside of cold approach.

>> “For most men”
>> Most men classify as “don’t know what they are doing”, “random”, “creepy”, “needy”, “anti game”.
>> You’re not learning game to be “most men” are you.

^ True.

But even for intermediate daygamers (I am one), only 1% of girls that I BLIND APPROACH will fuck me. That is normal… for decent skill running BLIND APPROACHES. But that is not the only way to do daygame… I will say more about this in a comment below.

>> What you’re missing there is all that herd is flocking, desperately, toward ‘attractive men’

This is also a confusing line. It sounds like when you’re Top Guy, ***all*** the girls will throw their pussies at you… and that is fundamentally untrue (even for single girls).

Some, extraverted girls, will throw pussy at Top Guy. That is true. But as you talk about other girls beyond extraverts… now you are dealing with PASSIVE GIRLS. Seducing passive girls outside your social circle is VERY different than extraverted girls that chase Top Guy rockstars within the context of those lifestyles.

Passive girls and introverts ARE desperate for Top Guy… but they don’t take action. They may even hide their interest. That is also normal.

The “herd” RESPONDS to Top Guy. Yes. But they don’t “flock” in this active way, that Yohami is suggesting. Only some relatively small % will proactively initiate contact… often those are masculine and/or extraverted girls… or are playing off your value from your environmental game (rockstar game, etc).

The way I read what Yohami is saying… imagine you’re so cool, that many girls are, in fact, throwing pussy at you. Because you are something like a social rockstar (so even introverts show obvious interest in you… when they know who you are). And you like those girls. And you’re getting laid, whenever you want, with good quality. In that scenario, the only “herd” you have time to see… is girls that choose you. That show obvious interest, and do it quickly. So you don’t even know about the other girls.

^ This is a great position to be… but it confuses the shit out of most guys.

The herd (=all girls) DOES RESPOND to Top Guy. But doesn’t always know who Top Guy is (imperfect information) and/or doesn’t show interest (because they are passive). Yohami can’t even see those girls, and doesn’t need to… as he is up to his ears in pussy.

>> Being bottom guy and trying to scrap the bottom of the barrel doesn’t teach you how to do it properly. Talking to 100 girls and being told by 98 that you don’t cut it, doesn’t teach you what you’re lacking to turn them all into a YES.

Again… Yohami is assuming you get BLOWNOUT by 99 of 100 girls. And that is not what is happening. He is over simplifying. My blowout rate is maybe 40%, tops? And that is from BLIND APPROACHING.

100 APPROACHES:
— 40 blowouts
— 30 “soft nos”… she stops, smiles, and disengages
— 20 “okay sets,” little chat, we screen each other, but there is no magic
— 10 “great sets,” where there is sparkle… not all these girls are available

^ I get 15-20 numbers… from a mix of “the okay sets” and the “great sets.” I date 5 of those girls. I kiss 3 of them. I eat two pussies (I love to eat pussy). And I fuck 1.

That ^ is what “99% rejection” really looks like.

>> In social circle AT LEAST you can see the type of guys these girls go

My “life friends” as a social circle is ONLY old, married friends and their busted unmarried friends, super boring dinner parties, sports talk, etc. Always a waste of my time, sexually. Always. Being with them makes my game worse.

I have met several new “social circles,” through game. And watched some of them, also turn into older, boring, married groups with updatable friends.

Terrible strategy. And it’s lazy. Go hunt. That is the answer. Learn from Yohami so you can hunt smart. Fuck social circle game… it’s is lazy bullshit.

I am recently checking out rope bondage culture… and most of the girls are taken, and/or very ugly, and/or very weird. Very few single girls go to rope parties or classes. Small pool of targets. Terrible way to learn.

So… I am “stuck” with the hundreds of beautiful, young, single girls I meet on the street each month. It’s a very good deal. Go Daygame.

And you should note that I am OLDER… I’ll be 45 soon… so for guys in college, this is different. For early 20s… social circle makes (a little bit) more sense.

For me… Daygame is paradise. I’m learning incredibly fast… and ONLY BECAUSE OF COLD APPROACH.

Period.

>> The guy who is in abundance will kill it on the street, and everywhere else. Or – a guy who’s already alpha / top guy can do Daygame and kill it.

^ This is Yohami being fair about the potential of “meeting girls on the street.”

And yes… Top Guy… would still get blowouts… if he talk to girls that weren’t sending him “approach invitations.”

Very often he would. He would get “full eye sparkle” and a blush, 50+% of the time (that’s too much, but let’s start there), even on cold approach.

And he would get a smile and she would run off, because she was nervous another 10% (that’s not rejection, that’s “frying her circuits”)… and 10% something warm, but not full acceptance… and 10% skeptical (because she has issues, or some other guy hit on her 1 min ago)… etc…

And 10% of the time… fucking Top Guy would get blown out. That’s not weird.

C’mon Yohami… no guy “can have any girl her wants” and no guy, gets accepted by everygirl.

Top Guys “secret” comes from being super high value, having his place at the top of the hierarchy, owning that place, having the mindsets of that spot in the hierarchy, having a flow of women coming past him that make that place fruitful, swinging his dick in that scenario… and then, cherry picking the best responses from the crowd… and then… feeling even more entitled because he gets perfect responses in that group he selects… and then, has badass experiences from those responses… which make him even more “larger than life” to himself… and then… the cumulative effect of all the experience he gets… and then he swings his dick even more savagely… and then he gets even more outrageous responses… and he’s a king… and everyone knows it… and they treat him like that… and he expects it… and the whole thing spirals up.

POW…TOP GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good work if your can get it. It can be done. We can approach this. Some of us can. It can be done.

Top Guy… if he sticks to girls sending approach invitations, and is very good at actually correctly reading those invitation… and he’s not foolishly cocky… would “never get blown out” (which means rarely)… I believe that.

But I have you on this cold approach thing. Men that cold approach… (because they are not kings, YET, and don’t have a kicks kingdom)… get blown out. There is no avoiding that. And it’s higher than 10%, period. It’s higher than 50%, period.

>> how else can we fuck girls potentially who are much younger and varied than us
— Blue

Here Blue is making a case for daygame… and one I completely agree with. This is a fact. Many men, are, in fact, approaching girls they do not now, and getting laid. And killing it. That is a simple fact. I am part way there.

That is NOT “all daygamers.” But some guys use daygame to FIND GIRLS and as A MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH TO SHOW VALUE… and do very, very well. Better than they could in ANY other format. No doubt.

None of this goes against what Yohami is saying about Top Guy. The daygamers I am talking about ARE Top Guys.

>> other than the Top Guy frame, how do we become the attractive guy with a rejection rate of minus a million?
— BLUE

Yeah… we can filter for girls that want some cock… or want badass men in their lives. Filtering… is advanced game. Not for newbies.

NEW CONCEPT: BLIND APPROACHES

Krauser talks about this, saying these are girls that you don’t know are already into you, or shopping for some cock. This doesn’t mean “blind” where you don’t see her face… this means “blind” where you don’t know if she’s interested/available.

When Yohami talks about Top Guy, he is ONLY talking about girls that show interest/availability quickly. For Top Guy, in a big marketplace… that is a lot of girls. From that POV… everything else is different than what most of us know.

If you COLD APPROACH, and don’t know the girls INTEREST/AVAILABILITY… you will get “rejected” (means the girl did not dane to fuck you) 99.5% of the time. That is true. And there is nothing wrong with that… it’s just hard. Hard is okay. Most of life is hard. And you may learn the wrong behaviors (you probably know nothing else, so it won’t make your worse.. for now, don’t worry about it that much… it’ll take you a long time to understand what Yohami is saying).

FILTERING:

What if you could know a bit more about the girl, before you approached? That would change your numbers, wouldn’t it.

When Krauser is fucking 1 in 30 approaches… it is because he is screening for interest and availability before he approaches. It’s IOIs and more. Daygame Infinite talks about this specifically.

He has actually been saying this for years. I may write more about this…

He has been saying this for years… but this is VERY ADVANCED GAME. So I couldn’t even understand this until recently… so I never “heard it.” We can only hear what we are ready to hear.

Newbies don’t have the skill or experience for this… so don’t expect it. Go talk to girls.

You need AT LEAST 500+ approaches min, before you’re ready for this. I needed 3000. In part… because I needed to date 50+ girls from daygame… and fuck 20 girls form daygame… to learn a bit of what I needed… to have the skills/experience… to know what this means.

I thought Krauser was against blind approaching. Could you Nash talk about why you choose to blind approach and why you find it better than pre-approach filtering like the LDM guys recommend? (You look for signs the girl is open to being approached).

I personally prefer blind approaches because there is a significant number of girls I found in my experience who don’t show signs they are open. But this also increases the harsh blowout rates.

He is not “against it.” He is pointing out that it could be a drain on your energy. You can do them… but yes, they are much lower ratio.

And to connect this to TOP GUY:

The kind of RESPONSES YOU GET greatly impact your game. Bottom Guy thinks it is about working harder (I am bottom guy in this way). But all the “rejections” dull his shine.

Or rather… if you “never got rejected,” your shine would be much more sparkly. It’s “entitlement” X11.

So… filtering for great interest/availability (which is harder to put into practice than to say), will NOT ONLY give you a higher ratio… but will IMPROVE YOUR SHINE… which will GIVE YOU A RATIO… which will IMPROVE YOUR SHINE… which will GIVE YOU A HIGHER RATIO…

^ Welcome to Top Guy.

And a lot this starts with DON’T CHASE REJECTION. It’s low yield AND shine killing.

This is part of how I read what Yohami is trying to teach us.

>> I personally prefer blind approaches because there is a significant number of girls I found in my experience who don’t show signs they are open. But this also increases the harsh blowout rates.

Krauser would agree with all this. I do a lot of blind approaches… mostly blind… but I am not as good as Krauser, and I am just getting what it means to know how to “filter.”

I am high functioning bottom guy. I’m working on it. If anyone thinks this is easy… they are either already Top Guy… or a fool.

The issue is that if you approach Game from a “I will talk to 100 girls and 98 will reject me”…

Stop there.

This is the same place where you “I will try to kiss you but I don’t expect it to land, Im just making a statement”

Same place where “I push for sex, you tell me when you’ve had enough, there’s the door if you want to run”

That’s all the same thing.

What all that has in common is that it does two things, in no order in particular:

————————–

1) It moves ahead before there’s an opening (no ramp)

2) It assumes that most moves will be rejected

————————–

Or

A) It assumes most moves will be rejected, because the start assumption is that you’re not attractive, so you only see the side of women on how they deal with unattractive men, and then you did a mental trick and assumed that’s how women are – as opposed to how women are WITH YOU. You never see women as hungry devours of men, only see their walls, so you think the wall is what you have to interact with, and

B) Moves before there’s an opening, so you don’t go for arousal, your moves are blunt and ‘cold’, which triggers defenses immediately (makes girls push their brakes and examine you closely) forcing them to quickly switch you into a top / bottom dichotomy… and guess where you’re coming from (A), so you get the game you play.

——————————

“Cold Approach”

The idea of cold approach is insanity.

Cold approach means you’re moving before time. You didn’t ramp.

When a telemarketer picks the phone book and calls randomly that’s cold approach and has of course a huge rate of ‘rejection’. When you offer dick or do pickup randomly on the street (or anywhere) you’ll also have a high rate of rejection. You’re looking for the market blindly.

When you have a captive market, an audience who is already a fan of the product, who is looking for the product, then a ‘ping’ and offering them the product has a very different result than the ‘cold sale’. The product ‘goes viral’, each customer brings a friend. Very different setup.

So stop again because I know you are not getting this:

Women are not a random selection of costumers and you’re not a telemarketer.

Women are a captive marketplace.

They all want the same product, are looking for the same product, have bought it before, will buy it again, are looking for an improvement on it. That morning, they got up daydreaming about it. Got dressed for it. Are working towards it. Running towards it. Were talking about it with friends. Are obsessing about it. Reading about it. Touching themselves about it. Since their hormones awakened they care about this thing and this thing only. So much they can quit careers, betray friends, part with family members, take plane rides, spend their money, do crazy shit, fucking crazy shit, and live in a constant state of competition against every other fertile woman for this thing and this only:

Top Guy.

—————————–

So when you talk to a woman, and you ‘offer her what she wants’, that’s not a ‘cold approach’, that’s a ‘pinging existing costumer’

——————————

From the Top Guy frame you don’t assume rejection but assume arousal.

But this translates to more than I can express here with words and I have no idea of what images are popping on your head.

Every successful laid you had with cold approach, the girl didn’t see it as cold approach, she just experienced top guy in a way she was prepared for, that day, that time. You hit it randomly (because you don’t know what you are doing), but for her ‘everything was right’

“everything was right” because your move was preceded by the right things – they came with a ramp, for her, even if you didn’t ramp them yourself.

So the beautiful thing about this is you CAN DO THE RAMP YOURSELF and deliver the damn good archetype every time with no fault if you know what you are doing and what the rules are.

———————————-

So top guy is attractive. From there, all you see is either signals of arousals, or walls. The walls, you don’t interact with. The signals of arousal, you double down. The more you stimulate the signals of arousal, the more the walls go down like they never existed.

Now put that every ‘signal of arousal’ is a different woman, and every ‘wall’ is a different woman. The more you deal with the girls who find you attractive, the more unrelated women who were walls also find you attractive.

Why? because it’s also a feedback loop and it changes you. When you ‘are the kind of man who women find attractive’ it changes your behavior so when you deal with another woman who is a ‘wall’ you deal with her from an ‘arousal’ point of view. So she sees that your behavior should be arousing her, so she puts her own wall down so she can be aroused.

Frames incite other frames.

But how does this mark a difference in pickup?

————————————–

The difference is in ‘cold approach’ vs ‘flirt’

Because flirt is the ramp, and cold approach assumes there’s no ramp. That fucking word ‘cold’.

So let’s say you’re standing or doing some shit. You see a cute girl, you look at her till she returns the gaze, then you say hi and talk to her. The ‘look at her’ is the ramp and that approach is not longer ‘cold’. If she doesn’t return the gaze, go back to doing your own shit and having fun, look again later. When she returns the gaze, then say hi and talk to her, and that approach is not longer ‘cold’. You move in when there’s arousal.

Let’s say you’re standing somewhere and there’s a cute girl on a cue and is wearing headphones. Same deal. Not paying attention to you? you may need to say “Hey!” with a grin so she looks at you, then you talk to her. What do you say? whatever is congruent for that specific situation that will arouse her. Flirt. What is flirting? tell her you like her. How? compliment something about her, do a bridge rapport and call to action (Im doing whatever in this place, when are you free? let’s have a coffee).

Let’s say you’re somewhere and there’s a bunch of attractive girls together. Do the same shit above, eye contact, say hi, talk random shit about anything that is funny and / or interesting or situational, until something ‘shines’ then double down on that, then call to action.

There’s literally no difference in all the parts of the process because it’s all coming from the same place.

If you watch RSDMax he’s doing this thing all the time – even when he does daygame.

So what’s the % rejection rate? I can’t quantify it because it doesn’t exist. A rejection means a move that was pushed away and is dead. But when you don’t push past the resistance point there’s no rejection, and a girl who had set a wall will lower it herself shortly after a few new iterations.

Let’s say you go to a party. Talk to everyone, flirt with girls. Engage with one. Drop her. Talk to another one. Go back to the first one. Go for arousal. Double down in what feels best.

When you’re pinging girls you’re not a telemarketer – you’re a channel for ‘top guy’. If you act the part, you get costumers. Because it’s a captive market.

Way before I had an understanding of this thing, I noticed that just going places and standing against a wall or checking my phone and talking to a couple people would start ‘building circles of social circles around me’ with very little effort. I’d say small jokes and people would crack in laugh easy. Girls would touch me. WTF was going on?

The day that I saw this clearly for the first time is when I went back to Game after a few months of not going out. I had removed all the layers of technique and was just ‘being myself’ but from up there. I went to this bar, talked to the bouncer some, went in, got a whiskey, flirted with the cashier some, then the bartender, walked to a table sat, sipped my drink, played with my phone, made a couple jokes to another table that had people in it, introduced myself, sat back, some people kept talking, talked for 20 min to some guy from that group, then two girls came sitting close, back and forth with the group, then the place is closing, cutest girl is on the ride (of course), I tell her to go to a different bar for a drink, we go alone, make out, take her home.

I have hundreds like that story.

What did I do? nothing!

Two nights later – go to this pub barcrawl thing, befriend the owner, walk around, meet new people, cutest girl in the place has a pirate costume, I ignore her, about a half hour later she’s standing next to me and I joke “but how do you make out with guys with that mustache?” “or girls, whatever!” some banter back and forth, I go talk some other girls, she goes home to change her fucking costume and comes back sexy as fuck, we talk more as we walk down the streets, then we’re holding hands, then I put my hand on her waist and go for the kiss, makeout, horny girl, then she tells me she has a boyfriend and she’s being a bad girl and runs away with her helper friend. I joke about the situation with a guy who was also after her, go to a different place, right in the entrance there’s a hotter girl dancing, I ask “are you one of these girls who have a boyfriend”, she laughs and says no, I take that one home that night. Back at home I have messages from the pirate girl asking me to ignore the whole situation (lol). I ignore. Two weeks later the guy running the barcrawls tells me she’s been asking him about me and when Im gonna be there.

What did I do? nothing!

Location story – I go to the gym, the girl working there is hot. I flirt. She’s receptive. I take her out, I bang her.

Online story – I ping many girls on social media, add them to facebook, forget about them, some like my posts, I talk to them, some chit chat. Then “hey what are you doing this weekend, I’ll take you out” Take them out, have some drinks, bang them.

Afternoon little niche story – I go to this acting improv workshop, plenty of girls there. I do my thing and put myself in the center in all exercises, making the people laugh. One of the cut girls looks sad, we talk some and there’s some sexual tension. Later when everyone is leaving she jokes that she has no one to cuddle with, I put my arm on her shoulder and tell her I’ll fix that problem. Walk home, make out, bang.

Bus story – cute girl is reading a huge book, I tell her “wow! you must be really intelligent to be reading that huge book” she cracks in laugh “what’s it about”. Talk some more about books. I ask for her phone “Let’s do something sometime”. Bang.

Pre-wedding story. Im standing smoking a cig and a bunch of girls in lingerie pass by. I said loud and teasy “hey guys what are you doing?” They stop and circle me “our friend is getting married and we’re selling kisses” “oh well lucky me”. I didn’t bang any of them that night but a couple of them went into my social circle and that led to other adventures.

Movie story – went to this park where they had a cinema thing going on. There was a car full of french girls and what not. “hey can you spare a beer?” “Thanks, so what’s this movie about?” chit chat, then the car is going and we’re all going to some bar but first we gotta stop at some dude’s place. There are two girls I like, one is slutty and drunk and hitting on me, the other one is delicate and modest and taking it slower, I go for that one (lol). Later we’re on a pub and we’re making out then she says she’s got a boyfriend.

All my stories after I ‘hit the note’ is just of some guy going places and being attractive.

On top of these stories that Im bringing – I had my own circle and castle and doing parties and being the center – and all of that had been translated into my behavior and was already there. It’s there without me ‘doing’. When I say hi to the girl Im not thinking “I hope she likes me”, Im thinking “so how good of a fuck is she?” and all there is is tease and looking for arousal, and then I’ll double down to anything that looks like arousal and ignore anything that isnt.

So what’s the rejection rate here?

There are more available girls everywhere that is humanly possible to have sex with

————————-

There’s a product and girls are crazy, literally, about it.

You’re not a telemarketer trying to sell a dead fish.

Any girl who gives you any kind of time of the day is seeing the ‘top guy’ in you. The 98% rejection rate means you don’t know what you’re selling or what you’re doing.

You have to be a top guy and exhude it.

The % approval rate you’re getting is not because you have a ‘system’. It’s that you have a system that, for some girls, for some days, in some shapes and forms, makes the girls see you as the top guy.

But if you know what you’re doing you can effectively deliver that at all times to everyone.

————————-

So if you had the possibility to go anywhere and bang the girls you like, what would you do? how would you be? what actions would you take? if your first assumption was ‘success’, and you had a feedback loop reinforcing your ‘success’, what kind of man would you be?

The more you are that thing above, the more you are, that thing above.

It’s insanity… IF you are a king, with a king’s lifestyle. If you are not a king… it is a legit place to start to accumulate reference experience. That is a part you’re omitting. Men will not step into this without ref experiences.

You say you “got it”, etc, etc… and then you tell all the stories AFTER you got it.

But you leave out all the experience that got you closer to the skills that helped you see/know/feel what Top Guy is… BEFORE you got it. And you confuse guys.

I am literally looking at Top Guy opportunity… I can feel it… I am Top Guy… sometimes…and I am still Bottom Guy… trying to let go of my old habits.

My “lens” is still dirty. When I clean my lens, Top Guy will shine through.

It CAN happen in ONE SECOND, if you “get it” in one second.

For most guys… it will never fucking happen… only because they don’t get it.

And for some guys… they will have to learn to see… test… get close… fail… and then eventually… jump to the other side.

……

CHECK THIS OUT: We swing our dick, and give her more of what she likes, and less of what she doesn’t like.

And when we try to become TOP GUY: We swing our dick, and give OURSELVES more of what gets us Top Guy position, and less of what makes us bottom guy.

It’s that “swing your dick” = experiments concept again. And we have to try stuff… because it is a fact that most of do not really get what you mean… at least not at first.

I am being painfully honest here, so other guys can watch me try to get it… and maybe guys that are farther than me can learn from watching me creep up on this idea… “trying to make the leap.”

……

I am “on the other side” of “normal game.” I’m a proven thing, by the standards of normal game. I’m not great, but that’s besides the point… I’m competent. I get results. I can approach, get leads, date and fuck. I can do that in a foreign city.

I wasn’t always “here.” You watched me make the leap… just about a year ago.

Not too long ago… where I am now was a dream. I believed in it. I made it. And it was a “type of leap,” not just incremental improvements.

Now… I am trying to move past “normal game” (which is a lot of “high functioning bottom guy” stuff… what Riv was calling “beta’s with courage”) and I’m looking to make the next leap into Top Guy territory.

If you think COLD APPROACH didn’t get me this far… you’re a fool. And you Sir, are no fool.

So… for the first leap I made… COLD APPROACH was essential to getting ref experiences… to learning basic calibration.

The approach part is correct, the ‘cold’ part is incorrect. The ‘cold’ needs to be ‘warmed up’ with a ramp.

The ramp removes all the randomness.

So what got you to where you are is the approach = you take action, you move ahead. So that I can celebrate.

As for top guy getting blown own, I really can’t figure why you think that’s a thing.

Blown out = hard rejection. Hard rejection means you pushed hard towards a NO. Why would you ever do that if you knew where’s the door, and where’s the wall, or where’s the arousal, and where’s the non-arousal?

There are girls who don’t like you – why pursue them?

The important thing is that this is not something passive – the first step is you take action, you flirt, tease, ping, eye contact, THEN the girl reacts, and you act on the opportunity or lack of thereof.

A lack of response on your initial ping is not a ‘blown out’ setup. It’s just an invitation of trying for another angle.

I’ve been in rooms with supermodels and wifes of very rich men and all works the same all the time. I could bang them all. I saw women ANGRY that they were turned on, and finding excuses to touch me.

Women have no defenses against arousal. They are slaves.

Any interaction with top guy frame turns them on. Any interaction with bottom guy frame makes them raise walls. This is where “top guy also gets blown up” makes no sense. Top guy is not a person = it’s a frame reference.

Top guy never gets blown out.

—————–

And cold approach is a slow way to get this – the fast way to get there is to actually slow the game down and pay more attention.

“pay attention to what she responds to”

If you know where you’re going, you can stop all pickup for some time and just focus on changing into Top Guy. In my case I didn’t do such thing because I didn’t know it existed – I was just recycling parts of it that I learned from game, but it was a dissarray of things and paradoxes. It took a long time really. Till I saw the damn thing.

Some guys are just born there. And we think that’s not ‘us’. But it’s us.

It’s just a different us.

Every time you get rejected and you get the ping to chase rejection just stop yoursef, and see what happens. Every time you see an opening to be dominant, be it, and see what happens. Nothing is stopping you.

Or, the only thing stopping you is your belief / desire to do something else, aka being ‘natural’. So don’t try to be natural, don’t try to get away with being yourself, go step by step. Direct, command, assert, tell her what to do, try things, the things that fit. Then find a new natural way to do these things.

>> if your first assumption was ‘success’, and you had a feedback loop reinforcing your ‘success’, what kind of man would you be?

^ This.

The keyword there is “reinforces.” That is part of Top Guy’s “secret” (which is not a secret).

Bottom Guy teaches your to expect rejection… which means you do things that REINFORCE rejection.

Top Guy teaches you to expect arousal, so your swagger is better, so you get more arousal, so your swagger is better, so you get more arousal….

^ Reinforces. ^^ Top guy.

I am going to do a post about Top Guy and text game. It will include the word REINFORCEMENT. I am starting to get it.

>> So if you had the possibility to go anywhere and bang the girls you like, what would you do? how would you be? what actions would you take?

This is too much for most guys. It’s too theoretical. It has no “internal ref experiences” for most guys, so it’s a bad teaching tool. It’s not wrong, it’s just not going to get guys to understand this.

>> if your first assumption was ‘success’, and you had a feedback loop reinforcing your ‘success’, what kind of man would you be?

>> The more you are that thing above, the more you are, that thing above

This ^ it. More yields more. Reinforcement. Top Guy is an upward spiral.

Yep. My first recommendation is “get a contextual alpha position”, doesn’t mean if it’s a job or a hobby, but something where you’re expected to be on top and in command and with authority, and you’re the center of attention.

You gotta ‘start’ somewhere, on the right foot, in the epicenter, with things coming at you, so you have a feedback loop that doesn’t rely on you chasing external value. Also a place where you can try things, fail and improve, without going to offcenter.

And you can see all successful Game guys doing just that – at the center of their own following. The RSD guys are good because of the constant being the center of the world.

Lets say that you have the genes for Top Guy in you but they need to be activated. And to be activated you need to be in the special circumstance where they are needed. Then you need to spend enough time there that it becomes your identity.

Maybe the kiss thing relates back to what Yohami (I am fairly sure) was saying about being disconnected.
I can’t imagine being rejected so many times with the kiss.

The kiss should be the icing on the cake – once the cake is cooked you ice it. You don’t randomly put icing on a packet of flour or a tub of butter. Or maybe it relates to seeing everything as a by numbers game – and I have these things in my tool box – the kiss – like a hammer – quick I will pull out the hammer now and hit what ever is around to see if it is a nail as that is what a man does he goes for the kiss.

Or if you come from night club experience – you can tell when the kiss is building up – there should be no mistake.

Or all these books with diagrams and steps and ladders etc is probably a good learning explanation method but you probably become disconnected from the girl in front of you as you are consulting a list of things and throwing that at her rather then being connected to what is in front of you. Or a 1000 approaches – surely you become more and more disconnected even though you might be learning and have fun with it.

It might explain the slow learning curve as well – if everything is by numbers and disconnected you don’t progress as fast as you should.

If you day gamed girls you had some prior interest with before approaching – lingering stare passing each other, sexy look at you, proximity (girls put themselves right beside you in shops, waiting for a train etc its never a mistake if you pick up on it) you would cut the approaches way down and increase the success rate. If that never happens then there must be things with in your self to fix.

Some times your natural instinct to some thing is a true reflection of something – I find if I walk past some day gamer and witness him stop some girl and say ‘hey I just noticed you there and had to stop you… her with a surprised look as she hasn’t clocked him prior’ my natural instinct is that it just seems off. As opposed to two people talking in flirty way some where both equally engaged (which I know might come after the approach but).

>> I can’t imagine being rejected so many times with the kiss.
— Surround.

I don’t know you well, man. But I’ll play with your comment.

This means one of two things to me… either 1. You are very calibrated, and understand something like Yohami’s RAMP. Or 2. You are super safe, and never take chances.

I never got rejected for the kiss.. when I was AFC. I only kissed girls that chased me… because I didn’t have the skills to hunt, to produce my own food… and I didn’t kiss that often either. Almost never. And almost never with girls I proactively went after. And never with girls that expected “cool guys.”

I was a fool to want to “perfect record.”

I used to brag that I had never had a girl turn me down on a date… and that was because I only asked out girls that really liked me… but from a AFC frame… and I dated maybe 3 girls a year. That is not success.

NOW… I get rejected for the kiss all the time. And I have also kissed three girls this week. From COLD APPROACH BY THE WAY… it’s not completely insane, after all.

The choice is not “either/or”… either never try, or fail a lot…. Top Guy is the better answer… but this “never get rejected” idea is ADVANCED… and if a man isn’t advanced (and Surround might be!)… and he talks this game… he’s probably a “beta withOUT courage,” and never fails… because he never takes the shot.

This is true.

— We NEVER TAKE THE SHOT… and never fail
— We TAKE TOO MANY SHOTS… and fail a LOT, but score more points (and get ref experiences)
— We CREATE PERFECT OPPORTUNITIES, and ONLY TAKE THOSE SHOTS… and we’re Top Guy

^ This is a progression. Nobody starts at “stage three.” Yohami is omitting the ref experience part of this… which he also had to go through.

>> Or if you come from night club experience – you can tell when the kiss is building up – there should be no mistake.
— Surround

Yeah… for GUYS THAT HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE… “you can tell” when it’s on… and then… time it right… and then… have a very high success rate.

And exactly HOW DO YOU GET THE EXPERIENCE?? You get it via trial and error. From coaching and theory, yea.. but by trying… and failing… and trying… and failing… and then… you pick up a piece… and spin up a tiny bit… as you “do more of what works, and less of what doesn’t work.”

This conversation is destructive for most men… when we omit that stage.

Yohami actually “hurt my game” two summers ago, as he ONLY shot arrows into my cold approach… and then he was AWESOME FOR MY GAME… as I had some ref experiences… as I started to spin up… and I learned a lot.

Let’s be careful here… we have a range of guys reading this… and this “what? she rejected you? That’s so Bottom Guy” stuff… is not teaching us how to get to Top Guy.

It’s actually hurting guys that are in early stage development… and can’t see that you need “basic” skills first… which are not really “basic,” they are a range of genius only a small % of men have… and then… TOP GUY… is probably literally ONLY 1 % of men.

You can makes LEAPS forward in game… and never understand any of what we’re talking about here.

That is not where I want to stay… but I get the earlier stages… all this TOP GUY stuff is not for beginners.

A big thing that is going on here in this discussion… is that BLUE VALENTINE doesn’t really “get it” yet. He is not a “believer.”

And that is a VERY GOOD THING… it is breathing life into this blog… as Yohami is fully active dumping GENIUS into these discussions… rare GENIUS form that guy.

And BLUE is playing the role of “newly initiated,” and I am playing the role of “recently initiated… but very far from demonstrating all this.” This is also excellent as other guys can watch Blue/I come at this from different stages of “getting it.”

Yohami said something very CORRECT when he told Blue to go run through another “10 girls” (all the way to sex)… and then come back and see what parts of this makes sense. We all need to do that.

The theory can’t sink in without REF EXPERIENCES. And those are PERSONAL. You have to earn them. COLD APPROACH is one way to earn them… don’t ignore the value of cold approach.

if there is GOOD WATER and WATER THAT MAKES YOU SICK in the forest… but no one has ever got it through you head that all water is “not created equal,” and you have to drink something… you’ll be sick a lot. True.

BUT… once someone gives you a “tip” that there is bad water out there… you start looking for it. And you know what… you are STILL SICK A LOT. Just knowing it’s out there doesn’t mean you can put it to use.

So you come back… and ask more questions. “Hey! I fucking get it! Wow!!! I get it… like, some water is making me barf… and some water is not… how do I tell the difference again??? Tell me one more time? I still think my magic canteen will protect me… you’re probably wrong… but, one more time? What are your trying to say? I really hate puking all the time… it sucks.”

Water here is YOUR SKILLS… not girls. It’s not just picking the right girls… it’s picking the right skills.

So you go back into the forest… and you think you have it… but you still get sick every few days… and you know you’re missing something… but you’re getting better… and you KNOW this one pond is “guaranteed sick”… and you have much better questions to ask that guy that put you on the path.

And you start to realize that guy is a genius. And to be insanely grateful to him.

This ^ is what it is like for me. Yohami said something, and I didn’t get that he knew anything special at first. In part, as I kept having the wrong arguments with him… Blue is doing that, to some degree… and that is GOOD for Blue and for this blog (and for ME, I’m still learning from this talk).

And then… I went into the forest WITH YOHAMI’S IDEAS IN MIND… and only THEN did I start collecting the right data… so I could ask better questions… so I could iterate up.

REFERENCE EXPERIENCES… are key here. Hearing guys talk about this is not enough. We go get new ref experiences… or we are KJ.

And cold approach is part of that… for most guys… or you will learn so slowly… you will 95 before you figure this out.

>> you flirt with the girls you find attractive during day, and double down when it’s going well.
>> If the girl is not ready for the kiss, the Top Guy flirts so she gets ready for the kiss.
>> The difference is in ‘cold approach’ vs ‘flirt’
>> Because flirt is the ramp, and cold approach assumes there’s no ramp. That fucking word ‘cold’.
>> Flirt. What is flirting?
>> Let’s say you go to a party. Talk to everyone, flirt with girls.
>> went in, got a whiskey, flirted with the cashier some
>> the girl working there is hot. I flirt. She’s receptive. I take her out, I bang her.

Hmmm.. it’s almost like there is something Yohami is trying to say here. What could it be??

…………………….

In the COLD APPROACH discussion, Yohami is being a little vague (which sucks) and little nuanced (which is awesome) when he disses cold approach, but praises flirting.

What is the difference between FLIRTING and COLD APPROACH… not that much at one level and a lot at another.

>> Blown out = hard rejection. Hard rejection means you pushed hard towards a NO. Why would you ever do that if you knew where’s the door, and where’s the wall, or where’s the arousal, and where’s the non-arousal?

So Yohami is okay with you “FLIRTING” with girls that haven’t sent you AIs… but doesn’t want you COLD APPROACHING girls. Hmmmm?

The difference is in degrees… flirting is more subtle. And… it works as a filter.

EX: If kissing a girl that isn’t ready is “too much,” then maybe telling her she smells good might be “subtle.” And if that goes very well (which is not about creating attraction, not necessarily, it’s more of a filter), then she might be ready for you to kiss her… she likes your comment, because she is already aroused… which is a sign a BOLD MOVE is more likely to work.

So… on the street… how do you do subtle things to check to see if you should do the more bold thing?

Doing BOLD THINGS before she is ready leads to a hard no. HARD NOs create resistance. Subtle things don’t, less so… but more importantly… soft nos are a signal to move away… from THAT TECHNIQUE… or from THAT GIRL. Try something/someone else. Not try to push past “no,” it won’t work.

TWO LEVELS TO THIS. SWINGING YOUR DICK (experimenting with girls) and “flirting” with LOTS OF GIRLS.

And “soft yeses” are signals to move TOWARD that technique, or toward that that GIRL.

“More of what she wants.. less of what she doesn’t want.”

……………………….

And where Yohami is being VAGUE… is in how he doesn’t count “failed flirting” as rejection. Of course it is. And a flirt that wasn’t requested is a “cold approach.”

But these are soft, and subtle… vs some of the girls that blew me the fuck out on the street today… and that happened. I didn’t filter. I did a bold move. I got blown the fuck out. That is not Top Guy strategy.

[Women are not a random selection of costumers and you’re not a telemarketer.

Women are a captive marketplace.

They all want the same product, are looking for the same product, have bought it before, will buy it again, are looking for an improvement on it. That morning, they got up daydreaming about it. Got dressed for it. Are working towards it. Running towards it. Were talking about it with friends. Are obsessing about it. Reading about it. Touching themselves about it. Since their hormones awakened they care about this thing and this thing only. So much they can quit careers, betray friends, part with family members, take plane rides, spend their money, do crazy shit, fucking crazy shit, and live in a constant state of competition against every other fertile woman for this thing and this only:

I have spent years trying and failing on a business related thing so I am acutely aware with the trying and failing. Some things take failure. The thing I am working on has no manual or information – total darkness, inventing my own set of symbols and language even.
On the other hand reading some one saying they fail at some thing that you can’t quite comprehend is different. Sharing an opinion is offering help.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. Trying many times isn’t the criticism. Or saying you failed at something a lot is a badge of honor for at least trying and any one offering an opinion for failing or on the number of fails must therefore by default be some one who never has a go.

You haven’t let go of the high number of fails being associated with the process or being part of it. Just when I hear you try and get rejected so many times going for a kiss I think I can’t imagine that happening so often not from a point of never trying either. And therefore I offer an opinion on that.
Its obviously out of your realm of thinking as is it is out of mine. If you cut down the opinion you are not at least considering it. Hanging onto the number of fails and other peoples strike rate is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

I just think you can stream line the process of getting the girls and improve the kiss. Maybe I like to improve processes or offer an opinion.

Kissing should be between you and a girl in front of you. When the moment is right you kiss each other. It should be just a progression. Part of the arousal progression. She should kiss you even.
If you think that is wrong then you will likely get rejected for ever more.
On the other hand if its a numbers game and you put them through the process – just go for the kiss when ever you want – that’s an approach, then that fine as well.

I am very highly sensitive in many regards – acute senses, intuition. The best times with a girl is when then is a feeling inside your stomach that just draws you forward – she feels the same. A pure magnetism.

There are draw backs to being highly sensitive – headaches, nausea etc.

I have a very acute sense of judging a person. Bad people generally instantly dislike me because I can see what they are when every one else around them is oblivious. Scam artists, narcissists etc. When I used to work in an office I could size up a person on the first day, if they were new, and could judge their ability very quickly. People didn’t like me saying this guys useless straight off the bat. I was never wrong in that regard.
I can pick a scam artist or a narc or a cop or some one of poor character or a slut pretty easily. I can classify women into different categories. It saves time. I prefer to be a sniper rather then a machine gun. Even someones shoes tell you a lot – men and women.
I see a lot of things other people can’t.
You can see patterns in people and women.

With the new found thing recently of arousal over resistance – wait a bit longer for the feeling or moment to build to the kiss rather then just kissing her as an independent thing for the sake of it. Or get more connected – a shared feeling – with the girl in front of you prior to trying to kiss her – you can feel it building inside if you tune into it.

1% strike rate is a random coincidence almost I think not a application of a process. If you approach ten you knew were more likely and got one lay that would be a 10 fold increase and 90% reduction in work.
But if you enjoy the process and the journey you can at least weed out the kiss rejection – it would surely make you feel better and feed back into your over all feeling.
You have made a lot of progress just expand on the focus more now after recent revelations.

I think the idea you need to kiss a girl regardless and independent of anything that proceeds that – as a bold move, which is then rejected – is some thing that you need to loose – as it only hurts your game. She is only going to think in that moment- what is this guy doing? Hence walls appear. Don’t interrupt that as don’t try at all. Try at the right time.

That’s not the whole story. She can reject the kiss and be more turned on than before you attempted.

So the question is:

Are you turning her on with your move?

Or are you making her uncomfortable with your move?

Is she closer to sex because of your move?

Or farther from sex because of your move?

So which ‘rejection’ are you talking about specifically –

Did you make a pass at making out later and she reciprocated? or was the opportunity gone?

——————

And to Nash:

We’ll need to define terms so this makes sense.

Swing your dick / flirt / tease: This is something you do on your own, this is small stuff. Like staring on her libs, making verbal remarks, roleplaying, light touching, etc, some of these will be reciprocated, some wont be, the ones that are reciprocated are the “doors” or “points or arousal”, the ones that don’t, basically they don’t exist for you anymore, you ignore them, but you can visit them again later just in case. She may not be receptive to a subject, or a smile, or a gaze stare, or a distance, or a tone, etc, buy she may be later.

Making a move / doubling down / call to action: This is something that REQUIRES her compliance for the dance to continue, example, kissing, taking her to your home, having sex, or earlier than that, actually setting a date, etc, making things happen.

The difference between the ‘swing’ and the ‘move’ is that you can be swinging all along and nothing can stop you from doing so. A non reciprocated flirt or swing vanishes in the air, so to speak, this is closer to your solo dance and is how you are with people. This vs the MOVE which is something you do ON HER to take HER to a desired destination. The flirt is energy being emanated by you, while the move is energy specifically put on her.

So no, making a move to kiss her is not ‘flirting’. Flirting is what happens before the attempt to kiss her. The kiss is an actual move. The kiss can be rejected, while the flirt can ‘work or not’. Basically all the time when you’re talking to a girl you’re either flirting, or wasting your time. All that time is simply time spent going back and forth finding the points on interest, and then you make a move on these points of interests, or ‘double down’.

So you make the move when she’s ready. But getting her ready is your job, too.

The swing / flirt is foreplay and the move is putting your dick in her, when her vagina is wet and ready.

The flirt / swing is the stimulation that arouses her.

The move / double down is acting on that stimulation and taking her.

If she’s properly stimulated, she says yes, always.

——————————-

Now about making moves and rejection.

Making moves is always better than making no moves. Making moves allows you to get experience, allows you to have a % of success and a % of failure. Making moves is how you learn.

Now, making moves when they are going to work, teaches you more than making moves when they are not going to work.

So your job is to learn to make moves when they are going to work.

——————————–

And about making moves, rejection and persistence:

Your move also stimulates her. Even if she says ‘no’, your move has an effect. That effect will switch, like everything else, into either arousal or non-arousal. It depends on what she’s closer to.

If she’s only mildly aroused and not ready for a kiss, and you go for a kiss, she sets a wall and pulls the break but now she’s closer to want a kiss, she just wants to screen you a little more. So you do whatever then come back for another kiss that she also blocks but now she’s a little more turned on etc.

The above is part of the dance to some degree, it’s just not ‘the dance’.

That it’s not ‘the dance’ means that this is not a game about pushing against rejection with persistance until she’s turned on enough that you crash her walls down.

That above, if that’s the strategy, is ‘bottom guy game’ and the success ratio will be very low, because of the presence of bottom guy game.

Why is is bottom guy game? because the frame is ‘rejection vs persistance’

Even when you play ‘rejection vs persistance’ and win, you don’t win because of persistance, or rejection, but because of arousal. You acting on her, stimulating her, for long enough, without going too hard on what she’s not ready for, made her aroused enough that the wall disappeared.

All the magic is in the second part of that paragraph: she got aroused enough that the wall disappeared.

If you focus on her arousal, and not on her rejection, if you double down (make moves) on the things that she opens to, and not on the things that she closes to, that arouses her x10 faster than all the persistance against her rejection points.

In other words instead of trying to land the kiss 10 times and hoping that your move arouses her and finally you land the kiss, do OTHER STUFF that arouses her and puts her in the mood so your first kiss lands.

Instead of pushing against her resisting body because you want sex and tussling your way through her resistance hoping that after enough persistence she gets turned on enough that her walls come down and she’s ready for sex, DO OTHER STUFF so she gets aroused and is ready for sex as soon as you put her in bed (or even before).

The switch if focus is not a minimal thing and is not subtle, in a way, it is EVERYTHING that matters.

The switch in focus changes everything way back to the moment you say hello – looking for the arousal changes everything in the pickup from before you even say ‘hi’. It makes the first eye contact spark in a different way. It makes more women interested. It makes the time spent with each woman shorter and more to the point, they get ready quicker, you get ready quicker.

She enters the elevator, poses in a seductive manner against the elevator wall

You (flirt) (cocky grin): So, have you had sex in an elevator?

(This addresses the ‘arouse’ part that she just opened by adopting a seductive pose, but also screens for a ‘wall’ since it may be a beta trap, it’s better not to follow girl’s dances to the beat)

Her: haha (puppy eyes)

You (flirt) (coming closer): mm you smell good

Her: (puppy eyes)

You (actual move): Kiss

————–

This above can actually result in having sex in the elevator, right there

The two instances of flirt are several things: asserts intent, go for arousal, take the control away from her, are micro advances (this happens in 4 seconds), and she gave compliance twice, and responded to arousal twice. All while screening for the walls.

————–

Without the flirt there, if you just do the move as a response to her pose, it’s 50/50 chance, comes down to what her actual motives were and what she’s attempting to do with you exactly. Following her around is usually a bad idea, your job is to lead. So the flirt takes the control away by flipping her to emotions and pinging arousal, which reveals a fertile open for you to make a move, or incites her compliance.

So how about if you say the line ‘have you had sex in an elevator’ and she doesn’t laugh?

Then the seductive pose against a wall was a ‘trap’

What happens if you say ‘you smell good’ and she doesn’t reciprocate, doesn’t puppy eye about it?

Then your kiss isn’t going to land

Can you go for the kiss anyway? yes. Will it bounce? most definitely. Will it arouse her? it depends on everything up until that point.

But more often than not, the offsync nature of your dance if you miss the beats will make HER have to take control and SHE will have to tell you what to do, so SHE will be leading you, for real. Only a tiny % of women go there, because this frame reversal is contrary to what turns them on. This is also why I point at the ‘tussle’ since that’s when you cede control to them and somewhat demand that they solve the situation for you (with predictable results)

——————–

When you find a wall or a non-compliance, aka she doesn’t react to the flirt, then you punish, or, set a wall of your own

You: “So, have you had sex in an elevator”

Her (out of her seductive pose): Gross!

You (tease): Oh you’re so boring

————-

You (coming closer): you smell good

She (pulls away): oh?

You (push her away): You smell like a cheese sandwich

————-

Neg and flirt go hand by hand. With the flirt you pull, with the neg you push. This isn’t random. You reward compliance, and punish non-compliance. Both increase attraction. The result of these two negs above is she’s more turned on afterwards.

————-

And

CHASE is when she sets a wall and you try to overcome by flirting, or making more moves on it.

Yohami, I think we will all benefit if you wrote something more detailed explaining the “arouse” you are really talking about. Sometimes you say that any interaction with a Top Guy, even if it feels bad to a girl, is arousing. Other times, it seems as a Top Guy you go for arousal, which means it is something you do that is specific, so not all behavior is arousing.
Just a short text on both how the girls think, view and feel arousal from a top guy so we understand their perspective, and what is arousal in the mind of a top guy, just something more detailed will make it clearer.

I’ll answer the question in another comment, but first, it comes down to the basics man.

Forget about the ‘real world scenarios’ and focus on the psychological aspects of this:

There’s a king in the middle of the tribe with all the power and all the resources. There are a hundred fertile women. The king will pick up one of them right now. The hundred fertile women all want to be the one, are trying to advertise and make themselves available, trying to tempt the king to choose them.

(Just for laughs, add a couple hundred of very thirsty and desperate men pushed to the periphery of this setup)

So “just about any interaction with the king” will arouse her.

This is not something for you to think with your brain and try to build a rationale for it – this is for you to go out there and observe.

Interaction with the king makes women horny.

What exactly about it? exactly everything about it.

Being negged by the king? horny.

Being rewarded by the king? horny.

Being pushed away by the king? horny.

Being invited by the king? horny.

So all your job is that she sees you as the king. So she’s horny.

How to make her see you as the king? be a king. But how? do king-like stuff. What exactly? This is what Im describing as “top guy frame”

Lead, tease, dominate.

If you don’t see it in the words, go out there and look at the men who have it easy with women.

In the same scenarios that a man makes you feel “small” women experience ‘arousal’. You feel ‘fear’ she experiences ‘arousal’. You feel ‘respect’ she ‘arousal’. You ‘competition’ she ‘arousal’. All the things you experience when you meet a man who’s above of you, in competence and / or authority and / or power, all that is mapped to the woman and her vagina experiences ‘arousal’.

Her arousal makes her want to offer compliance to that man. her compliance is also an invitation that he takes her.

This is all you’re trying to do with Game.

You’re trying to be that man.

—————-

All the little games that happen in that tribe of 1 king and 100 women: the intersexual competition, the chase, the push, the pulls, the drama, the hunt, all of that is still ‘arousal’ aka, there’s a king involved, aka, they are dealing with top guy frame, aka, the mythical alpha is there.

All the Game stuff is about trying to operate from that frame, behave from that frame, communicating that you’re in that frame, that other women perceive you in that frame, that you react to obstacles as if you live in that frame, etc etc etc etc.

And every inch and every little thing of that frame, on its own, before it goes to the rational and logical part of the brain – arouses the shit out of women.

To the point of making them insane.

——————-

So your job is not to chase her down your job is to ‘be the king’

Even if she blows you away, if you react to that in ‘king like form’ she’ll turn herself around and come back just in case you’re actually the king, was that a king she just saw?

The issue with Bottom Guy frame is that it is DELIBERATELY trying to NOT be Top, in some cases even as if it were a moral stance. It’s nonsense. The secret is that by picking bottom guy you decided to be out of the game.

“Other times, it seems as a Top Guy you go for arousal, which means it is something you do that is specific”

It is specific, because it comes down to this.

Seducing a girl means arousing her to the point she wants the sex.

Arousing her means rubbing her on ‘arousing spots’ while not rubbing her on her ‘non arousing spots’. Here we’ve called such ‘doors and walls’

A ‘perfect seduction’ is when you rub all her arousal spots and don’t hit any of the non arousal spots. A perfect seduction is like if you knew her already, ‘better than she knows herself’, in a ‘magical way’.

Who can do this if anyone at all?

A man who has fucked the other 99 bitches already, has gone back and forth with this, can read her like an open book, can see what she likes and what she doesn’t like, knows where her arousal spots are without she having to verbalize them, knows what will trigger her without she having to verbalize them, knows everything that needs to be known about her, because at the end of the day, she’s just another girl on the tribe, she’s not that important.

So the whole thing is a trap destined to open only for the king and bounce out all the men who are not the king.

It opens for top guy and closes for bottom guy.

This is a pyramid – the top guy is above, in the middle there are women, at the bottom there are the rest of the men.

An all at the same time the woman is a self centered, tiny, petty, maniac creature that only has her own emotions and takes herself extremely seriously. So she has this trap of doors and walls and mines and stuff that only ‘the right man’ can open.

Then almost all of them are crazy.

So here’s how you go.

You start from the frame of abundance, dominance, confidence, swagger, non neediness, self amusement, flavor, composture, body language, fashion style, and all the other stuff that only a man who’s a king can have.

Depending on the tribe this can take on many shapes, specially all the external stuff (a hipster tribe is different than a hip hop and different than a traveler and different than a wallstreet and different than a fashion tribe)

So you operate from there, you ping the girl. The ping is a flirt, is something small, its ‘hi’, or it’s a stare.

From there on, she is reacting to you.

When she sees you as the King, you reward her. When she doesn’t see you as the King, you punish her.

That right above is again the whole game, because THAT is basically all there is to Top Guy frame. What is a king, other than rewarding people when they see you as a king, and punishing people when they don’t?

Punishing people when they don’t see you as a king involves negs / being able to walk away / non neediness / buyer behavior / boundary setting. Push.

Rewarding people when they see you as a king involves flirting, pulling, rapport (attention), taking them places, doing moves WITH them, getting them into your close reality. Pull.

Push and Pull. Pull to the center of the tribe (ahead of the other 99 bitches), push to the periphery of the tribe (farther than the other 99 bitches, closer to the scrappy men in the pheriphere). See it?

And to the above you need to add the actual competence, specially the older you get. The competence means your behavior is grounded in reality and you’re not a homeless guy with a grandiosity delusion.

Also the competence means you act how you are. It’s not that you act as a boss but you’re flipping burgers on macdonalds (though for a certain tribe, this is plenty).

Also the competence means that you’re operating on this frame reference for long enough you know the ins and outs, you can SEE. So you know what to punish, and what to reward, what to pull, and what to push.

This is why Game is bigger than pickup by the way.

Anyway.

So you pinged her. She reciprocated because she thought you are top guy. Then you double down and take command (pull) by taking her out. Then you ping more (flirt more), find out what she gets aroused with, and do more of that, find out also what she doesn’t get aroused with, and do less of that.

What does exactly arousal looks like? with every girl is a little different, but basically ‘they want more’. Arousal is hunger, let’s call it that. This could be a whole book. Have you seen an aroused woman? go out there and see how women react to top and center top guy king like men and how the girls rub against them, laugh at their jokes, compete with each other etc. Go above, it’s the king and the 100 women setup.

So you do these specific things, you arouse her spots, operating from king frame. If she throws shit at you, you operate from king frame as well. Eventually she’s either aroused, or you failed to operate from king frame.

I ask here often “what does she want”. The question can also be “what does arouse her” or “what kind of man would she say yes to”. But at the end, really, it’s all the same guy, the same archetype.

You can have a girl who doesn’t drink, grab a cup of wine because the King told her that not drinking is boring.

Her deeper desire is to find the king and serve him.

But at the same time she belongs to a tribe and if you’re from another tribe, even if you are the King of that tribe, she may prefer the safety of her own.

It’s a balance.

Rubbing her in the specific points that she likes has a lot to do with the particulars of her tribe. It’s channeling her reality, to be the king of that reality.

Being with many women means that each gets their satisfaction in a different way. Again, women want the King, but they are, themselves, small, petty, self centered, self obsessed, emotional. If her G spot is where the action is you’re wasting your time with her clitoris. If she has a predilection for chocolate you’re wasting your time trying to make her eat vanilla. The king doesn’t try to force her to eat vanilla. Why?

Because you have 99 other bitches. If you want vanilla, why not pinging one who likes vanilla instead of trying to force this one?

This is the one you call when you want chocolate. Because you know she prefers chocolate above anything else. So when you ping HER, you are making HER feel special, because you are picking her above all the other girls BECAUSE of all her tiny differences. That’s why you chose the little snowflake. Yes her taste for chocolate is so unique. Give me a break :-D

But these are the rules of the game.

You operate from King frame, you ping, when the girl reacts positively you make moves and escalate, when the girl doesn’t react positively you either punish, neg, or close that door (depends on the gravity), or just pick a different girl (which in turn is a punishment, and will make this girl reconsider her own preferences and come back to you with a more favorable arrangement, aka lower walls and requisites). Then you keep rubbing the things in her that make a good sound and make her come, with your seed inside of her. Job done.